What would be the fastest?

[Clivey]

After looking at that article, it slams home just how terminally dull most new cars are. I wouldn't pay actual money for any of those cars (unless of course I could sell them for a profit).

My solution to the "problem" of fuel economy and emissions is simple: I'm buying a house closer to where I work (2 miles rather than 12)...therefore, even if I swapped my car for something that does 10mpg (rather than circa 44 as I get now) on the journey to and from work, it'll be cheaper to fuel overall.

If the cost of insurance wasn't so ridiculous in the UK, I'd then swap my C4 for a BMW 330Ci / Mazda RX-8...then at least I'd have "something for the weekend".

[Ferrer]

with average speeds up to 108-110 kph, which is much higher than the ECE cycle AFAIK.

You are probably right, but then the journalist tries to test cars in real life conditions. In his articles he always mentions fuel consumption and overall time. It doesn't matter if you do a million miles to the gallon if you are an hour late.

So actually it's not only a fuel consumption test, but performance and handling too. For instance one of the cars that has done better so far is the Ibiza FR TDi, which I think it is technically a hot hatchback.

After looking at that article, it slams home just how terminally dull most new cars are. I wouldn't pay actual money for any of those cars (unless of course I could sell them for a profit).

My solution to the "problem" of fuel economy and emissions is simple: I'm buying a house closer to where I work (2 miles rather than 12)...therefore, even if I swapped my car for something that does 10mpg (rather than circa 44 as I get now) on the journey to and from work, it'll be cheaper to fuel overall.

If the cost of insurance wasn't so ridiculous in the UK, I'd then swap my C4 for a BMW 330Ci / Mazda RX-8...then at least I'd have "something for the weekend".

It's not all lost though. There are still some gems to be enjoyed out there, if you can be bothered looking for them. In the end though, if you are really an enthusiast, as long as you can afford it, economy is never one of your priorities.

[henk4]

You are probably right, but then the journalist tries to test cars in real life conditions. In his articles he always mentions fuel consumption and overall time. It doesn't matter if you do a million miles to the gallon if you are an hour late.

Real life conditions would also include city traffic, traffic jams etc. The point that we were discussing earlier is the deviation of OVERALL mileage from what is derived from the ECE cycle. I think your Spanish testers provide only part of that equation.
People in Holland get tax breaks or are exempt from paying road tax if their car reaches a certain level of consumption. If this level is clearly artifical and even achieved by cheating (the BMW case), then I feel, being a normal taxpayer, providing 437 Euros every 3 months just for the pleasure of driving a car for which the ECE cycle is much more realistic, then I feel like I am being stolen from.

[Ferrer]

Pieter, I think it's time you get a BMW then.

[henk4]

Pieter, I think it's time you get a BMW then.

they are not exempt from road tax....a 520d Touring would cost me 14 Euro less per quarter in road tax (and considerable more for medical costs related to backpains...)

and for 2000 Euro less in purchase price, but 30 Euro more road tax per quarter, I could also buy a C5 Touring 3.0V6 Hdi....

[Clivey]

they are not exempt from road tax....a 520d Touring would cost me 14 Euro less per quarter in road tax (and considerable more for medical costs related to backpains...)

A 5'er in 'SE' trim will definitely not give you backache...especially if it has the optional comfort seats. Even the M-Sport can be ordered on standard suspension, if you so desire.

and for 2000 Euro less in purchase price, but 30 Euro more road tax per quarter, I could also buy a C5 Touring 3.0V6 Hdi....

How do the Citroen's residual values compare with the BMWs in Holland? One of the reasons they're not very popular over here is that buyers are scared of losing 70% of what they paid for the car after 3 years. That's exactly what I took advantage of when I bought mine at a huge discount.

[henk4]

A 5'er in 'SE' trim will definitely not give you backache...especially if it has the optional comfort seats. Even the M-Sport can be ordered on standard suspension, if you so desire.



How do the Citroen's residual values compare with the BMWs in Holland? One of the reasons they're not very popular over here is that buyers are scared of losing 70% of what they paid for the car after 3 years. That's exactly what I took advantage of when I bought mine at a huge discount.

Residual values of consumption goods are zero at the end of their lifetimes.
And if you start paying far less, your depreciation is also far less....in other words initially steep depreciations curves tend to flatten out after a couple of years and then could be on par with the flatter ones.

[Clivey]

Residual values of consumption goods are zero at the end of their lifetimes.
And if you start paying far less, your depreciation is also far less....in other words initially steep depreciations curves tend to flatten out after a couple of years and then could be on par with the flatter ones.

As I said: This is exactly what I am taking advantage of. I have owned my car for almost 3 years and in that time I have lost about £2k in depreciation. That's brilliant for a 2007-model small hatch.

However, regarding the C5: Most sales of D-segment cars in the UK are to the fleet market. Resale values are important to the fleet market as they typically replace their vehicles with brand new models after 3 years. Cars with low resale values become more expensive to lease, leading to companies removing them from the choices they offer to employees.

Unfortunately, in the UK Citroen have a poor reputation for quality and reliability after the cars they sold throughout the '90's and the early '00s. From my own personal experience, their dealerships don't exactly do them any favours either. This is the main reason for their poor resale values and also means that private buyers are also reluctant to try Citroens.

[Ferrer]

they are not exempt from road tax....a 520d Touring would cost me 14 Euro less per quarter in road tax (and considerable more for medical costs related to backpains...)

and for 2000 Euro less in purchase price, but 30 Euro more road tax per quarter, I could also buy a C5 Touring 3.0V6 Hdi....

You should also take into account the fuel consumption difference. Which could make the BMW a more attractive proposition.

[henk4]

As I said: This is exactly what I am taking advantage of. I have owned my car for almost 3 years and in that time I have lost about £2k in depreciation. That's brilliant for a 2007-model small hatch.

However, regarding the C5: Most sales of D-segment cars in the UK are to the fleet market. Resale values are important to the fleet market as they typically replace their vehicles with brand new models after 3 years. Cars with low resale values become more expensive to lease, leading to companies removing them from the choices they offer to employees.

Unfortunately, in the UK Citroen have a poor reputation for quality and reliability after the cars they sold throughout the '90's and the early '00s. From my own personal experience, their dealerships don't exactly do them any favours either. This is the main reason for their poor resale values and also means that private buyers are also reluctant to try Citroens.

that is applicable to Holland as well. My car was a one year old demo car from Germany, where prices are lower anyway.

[henk4]

You should also take into account the fuel consumption difference. Which could make the BMW a more attractive proposition.

I thought the discussion was about real life consumption figures, which do not differ much between the BMW and the C5.

[Ferrer]

I thought the discussion was about real life consumption figures, which do not differ much between the BMW and the C5.

Are you sure, because everything seems to be against the Citroën. And in my experience BMWs are quite brilliant mechanically. Our 1er does use relatively little fuel even if you go for it. I can only assume this will be the same across the range.

[henk4]

Are you sure, because everything seems to be against the Citroën. And in my experience BMWs are quite brilliant mechanically. Our 1er does use relatively little fuel even if you go for it. I can only assume this will be the same across the range.

118d ECE 4.5, observed 6.2...or almost 40% more.
my C5 ECE 6.2, observed 7.3 or about 18% more...(my average is 6.8)
(I took the C5 just for the fuel comparison, in other aspects a C5 and 1-series are totally incomparable)

[Ferrer]

118d ECE 4.5, observed 6.2...or almost 40% more.
my C5 ECE 6.2, observed 7.3 or about 18% more...(my average is 6.8)
(I took the C5 just for the fuel comparison, in other aspects a C5 and 1-series are totally incomparable)

Observed 6,2l/100km? I'd say on average I get 6,5l/100km and that's driving fast.

Where do you get the figures from and what are the conditions?

[henk4]

Observed 6,2l/100km? I'd say on average I get 6,5l/100km and that's driving fast.

Where do you get the figures from and what are the conditions?

see post #78.
http://www.werkelijkverbruik.nl

("realmileage.nl")